Is Canada entering a period of demographic shift to the West?

[Chadillaccc]

Is Canada entering a period of demographic shift towards the west, similar to what began in the United States in the 1950s?


Western Canada now holds 11.2 million, or just under 1/3 of the Canadian population, similar to the proportion of the American population in the Mountain and Pacific (Western) States. However, it seems that there is a trend beginning here in the prairies where the west has been increasing their share of the national population on a quarterly basis (about 0.053% per quarter). If the development of the $20 trillion worth of Natural Gas recently discovered in Northern British Columbia comes to fruition, the population shift to the west could accelerate significantly.


What was the original cause for the shift to the American West 6 decades ago? Was it due to resources/industry? Or mostly for the warm climate? Are there similarities between the history of the American demographic shift and the one currently ongoing in Canada?

[pdxtex]

lets ramp it back to the 1800's...

start here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

throw in a bit of isolationist policies and a few homestead acts, gold, cowboys, etc, and ouila, wild west. along comes hollywood and ww2, cheap oil, freeways and heleeelllo california for 100 years. i suspect the draw out west in canada might be similar, pioneery types seeking newer bolder pastures that arent toronto or montreal. the whole fracking boom kind of reminds me of gold rush boom towns...

[Beedok]

Canada isn't entering anything. It's a tend that's been ongoing since the foundation of Quebec City. Settlement has intensified in the existing areas while expanding west. We're still seeing increasing density in the east, and the West's proportionally greater growth hasn't exactly been that different from historically.

[twoNeurons]

I don't think we'll see a big boom like California did, though. One trip down to California and you can see why. California is just, well, such a pleasant place to live compared to the East Coast. You've got a gorgeous coast line, your choice of pleasant, temperate and hot weather, sandy beaches, surfing, excellent growing conditions, etc.

All Canada's got is Vancouver's rain and rocky beaches, the Okanagan's small wine country and Vancouver Island.

[dc_denizen]

moving west would be nice. the western 2/5 of the US (and Canada) is one of the most resplendent natural regions on earth with gorgeous scenery. I don't understand the urge the dig up the province as quickly as possible and sell everything to the Chinese though, surely it would be better to develop the resource slowly so that the grandchildren would be able to have plentiful indigenous hydrocarbons. Or is Alberta not prosperous enough?

[MolsonExport]

Oh no, more of the same bag (see Canada section), but now in the City Discussions section. The OP can't stop reminding everyone how fast Alberta/Calgary are growing.

Canada's population has been shifting westward since Jacques Cartier claimed Canada for the French. It has accelerated due to a prolonged energy boom (alternatively, some would believe because of the "can-do" attitude) taking place primarily in Alberta, and to a lesser extent, Saskatchewan. Growth in BC and Manitoba is comparatively modest, and more in line with the central Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Ceteris paribus, people migrate to where the jobs are. Simple as that. Younger people migrate more than older people, who are tied to their place. Younger people, by definition, are more fertile, hence the higher birthrate out in places like Alberta.

I know this is all so terribly exciting for some. It is too bad that the bulk of economic growth in Canada is almost exclusively underpinned by fossil fuel extraction. Our emissions are nowhere near our previous commitment to the Kyoto Accord. Well, our government pulled out of that agreement. Who cares about the environment when you can have amazing population growth, eh?

Waiting for the tomatoes to be thrown.

[ue]

It's hard to say. Right now the West (really, Alberta and Saskatchewan) are in a particularly interesting point in that they are experiencing surging growth numbers while the rest of the country (aside from the GTA) is only experiencing moderate growth.

In 10 years, Ontario could start booming like crazy, and not just in the GTA, but in Ottawa, Kitchener, and up North too, and that could throw numbers off, even if the West is still seeing a surge in growth.

I doubt the West will ever overtake Ontario in size and influence, but I do think the balance between West and East will even out more in the coming decades. The Maritimes are only experiencing minimal growth and I don't foresee that changing. Quebec isn't doing too bad, but the only Eastern province with the potential still for Western-style high growth is Ontario. Quebec and points eastward are too matured.

Southwestern BC and the Okanagan is still a very popular place to move to due to its unique climate situation within Canada. Vancouver Island may be drizzly for part of the year, but at least you don't have to shovel snow and you're surrounded by stunning natural beauty. For some, that's all they need.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Oh no, more of the same bag (see Canada section), but now in the City Discussions section. The OP can't stop reminding everyone how fast Alberta/Calgary are growing.

Canada's population has been shifting westward since Jacques Cartier claimed Canada for the French. It has accelerated due to a prolonged energy boom (alternatively, some would believe because of the "can-do" attitude) taking place primarily in Alberta, and to a lesser extent, Saskatchewan. Growth in BC and Manitoba is comparatively modest, and more in line with the central Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Ceteris paribus, people migrate to where the jobs are. Simple as that. Younger people migrate more than older people, who are tied to their place. Younger people, by definition, are more fertile, hence the higher birthrate out in places like Alberta.

I know this is all so terribly exciting for some. It is too bad that the bulk of economic growth in Canada is almost exclusively underpinned by fossil fuel extraction. Our emissions are nowhere near our previous commitment to the Kyoto Accord. Well, our government pulled out of that agreement. Who cares about the environment when you can have amazing population growth, eh?

Waiting for the tomatoes to be thrown.

Both westward expansion and the economy being driven by resource exploitation are nothing new. And environmental concerns have and always will play second fiddle to social and economic drivers. That's simply the way humanity is.

[Chadillaccc]

Why was this transferred to the Canada sections? Americans can have US-specific threads in the global section but we can't? Fucked up shit.


Ohhhh Molsonexport. All I have to say is, thank gods for the ignore list.

[MolsonExport]

are you polytheistic?

[ue]

Yeah, I'm not sure. There are plenty of other Canadian threads in the Discussion forums. Plus if you switched Canada for the US and had the exact same title, it wouldn't have moved to the US forum.

[Chadillaccc]

Also, Alberta's major cities have the best environmental records in the entire country, possibly the entire continent. If you want to talk about environmental devastation, sure talk about the sands - they're terrible for sure, but remember to talk about the billions of litres of raw sewage dumped into the ocean every year by each Victoria, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax, etc, and don't forget the tens of thousands of km2 flooded in Quebec (and soon NL) for their lucrative hydro projects and the tens of thousands of people displaced by them.

[Boris2k7]

Hahaha. Pretty sure that if you'd titled the thread "Are Western Canadian Cities Benefiting from a Demographic Shift?" (have to work the "cities" in there), then you'd have about a 50/50 chance of this thread not being moved.

[esquire]

"Entering"? That shift has been under way since the railroad was built. I'd say what you're seeing now is a stage where the tipping point is coming into sight on the horizon. Calgary went from being a rump on the prairie to arguably Canada's #2 business and financial centre in barely over 50 years. It's entirely possible that it could overtake Toronto in the next 50. Edmonton and Vancouver are major centres in their own right. Other towns and cities are growing at an impressive rate.

[SignalHillHiker]

No, I don't believe that it is. To the extent that it's happening, it's not really new. Also, there aren't many parts of the federation that are declining.

The Maritimes and Newfoundland are the only real stand-out examples in my mind - but this is mostly caused by urbanization. With some exceptions, our local cities are booming. Our people are more likely to move to cities in the region than to the West.

Newfoundland, for example, has suffered a net loss of 50,000 people since the collapse of the fishery. But our thriving communities have grown much more than that in the same period. St. John's alone has added more than 25,000 since 1991 (175,300 to 208,300). It's urbanization, really. Far more people have been internally displaced than have left the province. It's just that since we share a federation, Alberta is an option - and an attractive, easy one.

So, a mixed bag, really.

What was it, a half million people have moved to Alberta from other provinces in the past 50 years? Not really a migration.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

No, I don't believe that it is. To the extent that it's happening, it's not really new. Also, there aren't many parts of the federation that are declining.

The Maritimes and Newfoundland are the only real stand-out examples in my mind - but this is mostly caused by urbanization. With some exceptions, our local cities are booming. Our people are more likely to move to cities in the region than to the West.

Newfoundland, for example, has suffered a net loss of 50,000 people since the collapse of the fishery. But our thriving communities have grown much more than that in the same period. St. John's alone has added more than 25,000 since 1991 (175,300 to 208,300). It's urbanization, really. Far more people have been internally displaced than have left the province. It's just that since we share a federation, Alberta is an option - and an attractive, easy one.

So, a mixed bag, really.

What was it, a half million people have moved to Alberta from other provinces in the past 50 years? Not really a migration.

Yeah, as you say Canada in 2014 doesn't really have any broad regions that can be said to be in decline across the board. Up until recently you did have this especially in Atlantic Canada where, generally speaking, the rural areas sucked, the small towns sucked and the larger cities only sucked a little less.

It's actually something of a mini-triumph of "Canada as an idea" that Atlantic Canada today has cities that are every bit as prosperous or moreso than those in many other parts of the country.

And even a province like Ontario, the powerhouse for so long, now has regions and small cities that are in a difficult position.

So it is no longer a clear-cut case of all places in Ontario = good vs. all places in the Atlantic = bad.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I don't think we'll see a big boom like California did, though. One trip down to California and you can see why. California is just, well, such a pleasant place to live compared to the East Coast. You've got a gorgeous coast line, your choice of pleasant, temperate and hot weather, sandy beaches, surfing, excellent growing conditions, etc.

All Canada's got is Vancouver's rain and rocky beaches, the Okanagan's small wine country and Vancouver Island.

... and the most important of all, oil.

California's boom (due to a bunch of things, in your words, "gorgeous coast line, your choice of pleasant, temperate and hot weather, sandy beaches, surfing, excellent growing conditions") and the current Western boom are not due to the same factors at all. The only similarity is that the booming area happens to be located in the western half of the continent.

I'd say North Dakota's boom is a better analogy than California's boom, but as it's far from played out yet, we obviously can't draw conclusions from it.

[ue]

Well, California's original allure was gold and they say oil is the new gold.

[Stryker]

The better question if albertas growth is absorbing all of the population growth will the majority of Canadians not living in alberta be ok with that. Considering its democracy, and objectivity most people outside are not benefitting from people flocking to alberta I think we have an easy answer.

Moderating Alberta's growth makes perfect sense. and I assure you if the housing market drops before the next election, it will happen.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ue

Well, California's original allure was gold and they say oil is the new gold.

Valid point, but I'm pretty sure that the guy I was replying to did not intend to refer to the California Gold Rush years (California wasn't even a US state then) when he was speaking of "California's boom"... but instead, had a much less early, and longer, period of CA's history in mind.

If we wanted to find historical resource booms as examples then we have Texas' oil boom decades as a much better example than the Gold Rush, mostly because it's been happening in more modern times. TX has had a lot of decades of fast growth and it's a way more important state nowadays than it used to be (a century ago and earlier).